Republicans won the Senate. It doesn't matter. If anything it is a good thing because they are a joke and anyone who doesn't know they are a joke will get to see it on an even larger scale.
The 2016 elections matter, but only because it could signify the formal and explicit beginning of American Oligarchic rule. These next two years, this is it, you get two choices: a type of absurd authoritarian spectacle that resembles a Hunger Games reality TV show, or a real revitalisation of the left that demands a systemic reorganisation of political structures and a permanent de-concentration of power. In the end, I believe, the choice between the two comes down to leftist theology. Here me out.
If you live in America, or have been strongly influenced by American political culture, there is no getting around the fact that the American nation-state is not just political entity. It is a theopolitical entity. On a deeper level, I would argue that this is not just an American phenomenon, but rather, that there is no such thing as a secular political entity. This is the lie of the modern world. The nation-state itself is theopolitical, just as all political structures from the emergence of agriculture, have been theopoltiical. As classics scholar and psychoanalyst Norman O. Brown stated in The Challenge of Islam:
- To come to understand the true nature of the polity is to understand the true nature of God. Or, if you prefer, the function of the idea of God in human affairs, in the human psyche, and in society.
What is this God up to? Well of course, as any good God, it is up to Creation. Not the Creation of the Universe, but Creation of a "living" (or jobs). What does this say about America, and what does this say about our current situation between the present moment and 2016.
When analyzing the American right, it is quite explicit that the American state is both a religious and a political entity, and not just one or the other. For the American Conservative, the God here is the Free Market (the job Creator), and the true form of government that they desire is not at all a democracy, but rather, a monarchy. After all, for the American Conservative heaven is a monarchy, not a democracy. What this means is that they will defend the free market, even if it means giving up democracy. They do not care at all about true democracy, which is why Obama is an idiot for trying to negotiate with them over the past 6 years.
The problem for America and the rest of the world is that, this blind faith in the free market, is going to drive the country, and perhaps even the planet, off a cliff. This is because the free market as it currently functions cannot work in a world of increasing automation, which makes labour far less important to economic growth. As Martin Ford plainly explains in Lights in the Tunnel (2009):
- Conservatives generally favour low taxes and minimum regulation of producers in the expectation that this will result in increased economic activity and job creation, which will lead to strong consumer demand. The problem with this way of thinking, of course, is that, in an increasingly automated economy, the job creation will not occur. Consumers will have little opportunity to participate in the production process as workers and will lose access to the wages that sustain them. In the absence of an alternative income mechanism (i.e., basic income), a collapse in consumer spending will be the inevitable result.
In other words, as long as conservative free-market ideology (religion) continues to dominate the U.S. government (which seems probable), another financial collapse is as inevitable as large-scale automation from advancing computing is inevitable. American Conservatism is simply not built for the future; it is in fact, built to delay the future, as it has been doing just this since the 1970s at least. It got a taste of the hippies (or "godlings" of the 60s) and said "fuck that".
The religion in the liberal democratic side of America is less obvious, and they are less devote about it, but it is still obvious: the State itself. The government is God and that is where we will create our jobs. But the problem is that many government jobs are bullshit and mindless, we don't actually need them, and creating a bunch of government jobs doesn't solve the problems presented by automation anyway.
However, more importantly, the nation-state is not a structure that makes any sense in 2014. I cannot stress this enough. The nation-state was enabled by print culture. Meaning that, with the emergence of print, you get the concept of "public opinion" -- of an imagined community that must be taken into account (but mostly manipulated) by a small group of rulers. But print culture is obviously dying or is already dead. And the Internet creates a new type of public consciousness and attitude. This public consciousness is still forming but it certainly is far less concerned with the nation-state in particular, and boundaries of all kinds, and far more concerned with the world and humanity as a whole (i.e., the beginnings of a global brain).
But the problem then is that Conservatives, who are far more immersed in the politics of the nation-state because they are still inhabiting the past and their print culture ideology, are far easier to mobilise (read: manipulate). And of course, they are being manipulated on a large scale, and will continue to be manipulated on a large-scale between here and 2016. We cannot underestimate the stupidity of American Conservatism, and the inability for most people to understand the present moment.
And so this is why I would argue that the only real solution to a complete nightmare in 2016, is the outright rejection of the current political system, and the rejuvenation of a new radical leftist movement. It seems that now is the time for this as the insanity of the current structure should be obvious enough. Everyone knows that the Emperor has no clothes: the market and the state are both non-solutions.
That is why I think the solution involves the formation of an international re-organization of the leftist dream for an equal cooperative society. Enough with the nation-state. It once served a function, but doesn't work anymore. Enough with politicians. They once served a function, but don't anymore. We can organise collectively using the Internet. People think this is a dream but it is not. We can design large-scale decentralized argumentation systems. Enough with poverty. Everyone gets food. There is enough to go around. But achieving this would require liberals to wake up to the fact that we are never going to win while we play by the rules of an ideological group operating under totalitarian theology:
- Events like the Occupy Wall Street protests, the Arab Spring, demonstrations in Greece and Spain, have to be read precisely as signs from the future. We should turn around the historicist perspective of understanding an event out of its context and genesis. Radical emancipatory outbursts cannot be understood in this way. Instead of analyzing them as part of the continuous development from past to present. We should bring in the perspective of the future. We should analyse them as limited, distorted, sometimes even perverted, fragments of a utopian future, that lie dormant in the present as its hidden potential.
- What civilization is, is 7 billion people trying to make themselves happy by standing on each others shoulders and kicking each others teeth in. It’s not a pleasant situation. And yet you can stand back and look at this planet and see that we have the money, the power, the medical understanding, the scientific know how, the love, and the community to produce a kind of human paradise. But we are led by the least among us, the least intelligent, the least noble, the least visionary, we are led by the least among us. And we do not fight back against the dehumanising values that are handed down as control icons. This culture is not your friend. This culture is a perversion.
WOW. So this is going to take some effort to unpack. You have a lot of assumptions stacked on top of each other and some inferences that become full-blown self-evident conclusions without pausing for introspection. I think this is a valuable discussion to have, but I think we need to start off with the acknowledgement that I disagree with your assertions and I disagree with your conclusions. The flow of your argument seems to be this: 1) Left and Right are both so ideologically driven that they are immune to pragmatism, much like the devoutly religious. 2) Conservative governance will cause a complete collapse of government due to technological advancement that leaves no place for the underclass. 3) But government in general is an outdated idea because the Internet will permit an altruistic, decentralized system of wealth and goods distribution to create a Utopia if only liberals recognize that conservatives will bring about their doom. I looked up "theopolitics" just to be sure. It doesn't seem to be an agreed-upon term. I think you intend it as "rule by ideology" which would allow you to call the USSR a "theopolitical entity." Even there, though, you'd be mistaken - The Soviet Union was ruled by apparatchiks and the nomenklatura, professional and hereditary bureaucrats and intelligentsia whose social structure had far more in common with czarist Russia than the collectives that replaced it. Attaturk banned Islam and islamic affectations because he saw the European way as the way forward, but most Turks under him maintained their culture on the sly. You could perhaps argue that the United States theopolitically "worships" free trade, but Chief Justice Roberts upheld Obamacare on the basis of the federal government being constitutionally entitled to regulate free trade. Your statements for authoritarianism and idealism are assertions, not arguments, and I don't think you can state them as unassailable facts. If the Right and the Left were so ideologically driven, why was voter turnout the lowest it's been since 1940? And you can't argue that the election didn't matter to both sides, as it was one of the most expensive in history - $3.67b on house and senate races alone (India's last election - India's - cost $5b). It's easier to argue that our current political state has more to do with apathy than ideology. But enough of that. Republicans took the House, the Senate and the Presidency in 2004 and while it was a shitty, shitty time, the country recovered enough to elect a black man four years later. Let's suppose they don't, though - you want to argue that automation will replace unskilled labor leading to widespread poverty. China, however, has risen from widespread poverty to a burgeoning middle class, largely through automation. There's an optimization here - at what point does handwork become cheaper than letting the robot do it? Because if the robot costs you $4 a day to operate but you can get 2 laborers for $1.50, it starts looking attractive to hire grunts. And even if you don't, because you can afford robots, you'll find yourself competing with opportunistic handworkers. That's pretty much the essence of trade and labor - I have a Roomba, but I also have a couple nice ladies who come by every six months. And you know what? They cost more to hire now than they did before the invention of Roombas. Market forces. So in the end, it doesn't come down to ideology - it doesn't even come down to pragmatism. It comes down to "the free market" which, at its most unregulated, creates some pretty heinous dystopias. The test question is then whether the Conservatives would rather roll in their own filth or start talking about the Tragedy of the Commons and the need for "compassionate conservatism" - Ayn Rand was on food stamps and Rush Limbaugh is a big tipper. Then, the leap to "annihilate the government." And I'm sorry, I just don't see how you got there. I don't see how you can defend it, and I don't see any systems-level analysis as to how to get from here to there, let alone why. Contrary to your experience, one in four Americans don't have a computer or internet-connected device at home. Are they going to do stuff at the library? Who controls the library? Who controls their access? I've been giving money to Black Box Voting since 2001; if it's taught me one thing, it's that you don't want to give over the reigns of your freedom to the guys who thought Bitcoin was a good idea. One thing about bureaucracies is they're nearly impossible to knock over. I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of a flash crash in my electoral process. I admire your passion. I even admire your vision. But I find neither compelling. Conservatives are people, too, and while they may not want the world to run the same way you do, they most assuredly want the world to run. I'm not predicting great things from the next two years but I'm also not predicting doom'n'gloom. You might still convince me but you'll need to take smaller steps.
I largely agree with this. However, I just badged this not for the conversation it begins about Conservatives or Liberals, but for the conversation it begins on the 'Nation State' as a cultural construct and the condition of its foundation. I'd hate to see this thread only focus on the former, as I see it as less compelling. Like you (I suspect), I do not see an fundamental difference between the American political left and the American political right, and I don't think that Cadell made a convincing case for one here, although I do think his 'Free Market' and 'State' gods analogy makes a convenient shorthand for their method of problem solving. But in the end, it's all the same buy-in now. We might even get Clinton vs. Bush in 2016. But, as I said, what really interests me here is the viability of the 'Nation State', and where we are all headed globally. There are countless developments suggesting cracks in its foundations, running from Wikileaks and Anonymous to Bitcoin, Tor, Bitnation, and Estonia offering e-citizenship. Even our cross-border conversations here run counter to what keeps a Nation State healthy. It's no wonder the most powerful democracies have taken a totalitarian turn when it comes to our communications. Terrorism is not the existential threat, we are the existential threat. I disagree with Cadell that the answer lies with the leftists. If anything, it's the libertarians that are doing the most damage to the Nation State as, unlike the left, they have more or less reached consensus that they want out. As I see it, the election is a debate over what's on the menu on the Titanic. (However, I've found some amusement in watching the talking heads avoid saying 'neoliberalism'.) This boat is going to sink, and technology is the iceberg. However, I disagree with Cadell that there is a right or left issue here. This is an issue of human nature. We have new tools that allow us to act as we are naturally inclined to, and while our political persuasions can provide context to talk about what is going on, they aren't what's driving this change. At any rate, that's the part of Cadell's essay that got my wheels turning.
This is a facile discussion. "Nation states" are contiguous, occupied geography. The advantage of geography is you get to exploit the natural resources of that geography, be they animal, vegetable, mineral or strategic. The disadvantage of geography is you become responsible to those that share the geography with you. If "nation states" didn't matter, we wouldn't worry about the government of Lebanon, we'd deal directly with Hamas. If "nation states" didn't matter, we'd treat with the Zetas Cartel rather than the government of Mexico. Unfortunately, political factions necessarily lack the political bargaining power to control territory by design - let's take ISIS for example. Back when they were al Qaeda in Iraq, they were a bunch of terrorists that blew up citizens and occupiers alike via IED. They were responsible to no one, they had no entanglements. Then they started seizing oil wells and became ISIS - now they've got troops to shelter, prisoners to feed, territory to hold, and find themselves a bunch of phatty, phatty targets out in the middle of the desert. If "nation states" were passe, the Jews wouldn't have incorporated the idea of Israel into their very culture going back to 400AD and they sure as fuck wouldn't be fighting so hard for it now. Every example you use - Bitcoin, Tor, e-citizenship - none of that shit provides any of the benefits of "citizenship" or even "resident alien status" that society has been built on since the Code of Hammurabi. And it never will.but for the conversation it begins on the 'Nation State' as a cultural construct and the condition of its foundation.
Bitcoin provides a global transaction network and border agnostic purchasing power. This is something that States work to provide, and bitcoin provides it without them. I know some Chinese that purchased US resident alien status for $500k. They live in China for part of the year, and live in the US for part of the year. I'm not saying that the State is dead by any means, but I do believe that it has an expiration date. My guess is that the story of the next 100 years will be largely about this shift. My parent's friends were mostly in Michigan, with a few outside the State. They had similar purchasing power as I do, but never left the US outside of my father fighting in Vietnam. My friends are mostly in the US with several outside the US. I leave the States on an annual basis, as do my peers with similar purchasing power. Hell, the EU is sharing a Central Bank. From my perspective, geography is becoming a diminishing factor in many equations, even in those of shared responsibility.Every example you use - Bitcoin, Tor, e-citizenship - none of that shit provides any of the benefits of "citizenship" or even "resident alien status" that society has been built on since the Code of Hammurabi. And it never will.
BItcoin does not (and cannot) provide the following: - roads - streetlights - sidewalks - fire departments - police departments - health inspectors - hospitals - courts - grocery stores - runways - walkways - the roof over your head - the ground under your feet - the air you breathe - the water you drink - etc. Both you and Cadell are ignoring the stultifying number of things in your life that are tied to place that Bitcoin (or any other similar process) can never provide. These processes are transactional - they are a shorthand for the exchange of something intangible, such as value or votes. They have absolutely no handle on the physical - yeah, you can buy US resident alien status for $550k, but you have to buy it from a physical country with physical borders and physical infrastructure. That physicality will never, ever go away. Even if you decide to live forever on a perpetually alight thermonuclear zeppelin, you will always be in someone's airspace, even if it's "international" airspace. International airspace is governed by international treaty, which is cosigned by good, old-fashioned earth-bound nations. You can spend Bitcoin anywhere you want, but you can only stand where your shoes are. No amount of wishing will make it any different.Bitcoin provides a global transaction network and border agnostic purchasing power.
While service providers will necessarily be local, I think the trend is that the administration is going global. Of course, this isn't the case for everything on the list, but for many of them. When it comes to food, you have global systems of production and distribution in which states play a role often overshadowed by the global agents. Healthcare research, development, and testing uses increasingly global structures, and I don't think it will be too long before international healthcare providers emerge. Companies are choosing the countries they operate out, or the exchanges on which they are listed in a increasingly casual way. We have international courts with increasing jurisdictions, and international treaties and organizations that regulate resources and their use. The World Bank, IMF, UN, WTO, all these arose in just the last century and would have been pointless in the one before. IMO the granularity of global governance is going to increase much more over the next century.
I know you think that, but neither you nor Cadell have made a cogent argument to back it up. All the examples you list are of lateral moves from one national government to another, or between national governments operating via intergovernmental treaty. Nothing listed is extragovernmental. ...but it still needs to go into someone's mouth at some point, and that point has a latitude and a longitude. But they will still need to apply that research to real human beings standing on real soil in between real borders. But if they operate or trade within any particular nation, they are wholly bound by the laws of that particular nation. Key prefix: INTER not EXTRA. All but one of which governs trade, not law, and all of which are comprised of members selected via their national affiliations, not their corporate ones. Well hang on, though - this discussion started with and and We're now at So on the one hand, we've got "government by Internet." On the other hand, we've got "The Nikkei may be just as important as the Dow in a hundred years." They're not comparable. You can't get there from here. Thus my argument against this entire train of thought - the basis of the argument a sock gnome step 2.I think the trend is that the administration is going global.
When it comes to food, you have global systems of production and distribution in which states play a role often overshadowed by the global agents.
Healthcare research, development, and testing uses increasingly global structures, and I don't think it will be too long before international healthcare providers emerge.
Companies are choosing the countries they operate out, or the exchanges on which they are listed in a increasingly casual way.
We have international courts with increasing jurisdictions, and international treaties and organizations that regulate resources and their use.
The World Bank, IMF, UN, WTO, all these arose in just the last century and would have been pointless in the one before.
IMO the granularity of global governance is going to increase much more over the next century.
the outright rejection of the current political system, and the rejuvenation of a new radical leftist movement
the market and the state are both non-solutions
Enough with politicians. They once served a function, but don't anymore. We can organise collectively using the Internet. People think this is a dream but it is not. We can design large-scale decentralized argumentation systems.
Companies are choosing the countries they operate out, or the exchanges on which they are listed in a increasingly casual way.
The nation-state is probably going to collapse. At least that is the suggestion of a theory I developed in a recent working paper to understand the evolution of control system transitions. This is also the general prediction of metasystem transition theory, which focuses on understanding the nature of control in living systems. I don't think we are serious about the future until we re-think the structure of the nation-state, it is inadequate to deal with globalisation. It is pretty obvious that the historical division between the left and the right has been the difference between the role of the free market and the state in public life. Although I agree that the distinction is now breaking down as America turns into an Oligarchy, it is a useful way to realise that neither the free market, nor the state, is the answer going forward. I said that the answer lies with a new left because the radical left has historically always dreamed of the dissolution of state power and a move towards a cooperative international community directed by "the people" (which in the 21st century could be a type of distributed governance).conversation it begins on the 'Nation State' as a cultural construct and the condition of its foundation.
I do not see an fundamental difference between the American political left and the American political right, and I don't think that Cadell made a convincing case for one hereI don't think that Cadell made a convincing case for one here.
I disagree with Cadell that the answer lies with the leftists.
I can see that. However, I think it can be argued that the mantle has been largely assumed by the libertarians. I do not see communism as aligned with decentralization, although there are overlaps. Whereas communism charges the governance structure with the task of public good, libertarians tend to argue that the public good ought to be a byproduct of a system. There is a lot of shared ground, yet I think libertarians are more closely aligned with what technology is making possible, at least in the short term. But, really, what I am arguing, is that we needn't look to the left or to the right. Because they are reflections of a system that is becoming unstable. IMHO we are seeing left/right political dissonance because those views don't reflect the possibilities of a new framework.I said that the answer lies with a new left because the radical left has historically always dreamed of the dissolution of state power and a move towards a cooperative international community directed by "the people" (which in the 21st century could be a type of distributed governance).
I can agree with that. My call for the "new left" was mostly because, in my lifetime, the only time I have seen the foundations of society really challenged was with the Occupy Wall Street movement. The Occupy movement can be rejuvenated, the structure is basically still there, and they are attacking precisely what needs to be changed. Also, they have international appeal as it spread to over 90 countries.But, really, what I am arguing, is that we needn't look to the left or to the right. Because they are reflections of a system that is becoming unstable. IMHO we are seeing left/right political dissonance because those views don't reflect the possibilities of a new framework.
OWS failed because they railed about problems without presenting a cohesive solution. The Arab Spring wanted an overthrow of dictators; OWS, depending on who you asked, either wanted a higher marginal tax rate, stricter inter-bank lending laws or something-something-welfare. There shall be no protestant movement until OWS can present its 99 theses in a concise manner.The only time I have seen the foundations of society really challenged was with the Occupy Wall Street movement.
I think, by their nature the leftists look more populous, but a large portion of the tools and communities that are enabling the growth of State-independent culture have been generated by folk that probably identify more with libertarians or perhaps see themselves as neoliberals.
Yes; I've read every post in this thread and the insistence that it's the "radical left" that will overthrow/rebuild the state is confusing me a bit. If anything the members of the radical left as it existed 40-60 years ago have migrated to left-libertarianism (which may be the term you're searching for, because it's where the so-called neoliberals might intersect with classical liberalism). Nowadays, I associate the phrase radical left with extreme socialism. The furthest left political parties in the world are all in essentially socialist countries.
To be honest, that is a development that I am completely unaware of, although I should read up on it. But it's clear that the state is getting pulled apart from many different movements. Although it is not clear yet how it will happen, I think it is now safe to say that the liberal democracy as manifest in the nation-state does not represent any type of an "end of history".
Perhaps. I do think it is inevitable at this point, and it will definitely be a big part of how things play out, but as fast as the climate is changing, the rate of technological change is even faster. Therefore, it's my guess that technology will play the larger role in the undoing of the Nation State.
Climate change, however, will largely impact the sensitive populations and sensitive climes around the world, leaving the wealthy, northern-hemisphere 1st world a little warmer but no worse off. This is one reason why you see so few conservatives concerned with global warming - for them, "water wars" are an abstraction. A navigable Northwest Passage? Now we're talkin'.
The reason they aren't concerned about global warming is that they haven't used their brains. Self-interest is a powerful argument, always, but this is what they think is true. What is actually true is that climate change (and broadly, our impact on the environment) will end most ocean life. It will do things to biodiversity that we don't fully understand yet. When those rich conservatives get cancer and learn that the cure they need was eradicated along with some species of ivy in central Brazil 20 years ago, they may regret their naivete. And so on. Foreign Affairs has been hitting the arctic passage "benefit" of global warming pretty hard lately. I get it. It's short term profit (huge profit). And in the very short term, "a little warmer but no worse off" is probably accurate for just about everyone in America. So fuck Tuvalu. But in the not so long term, say 50-75 years, the northern hemisphere is going to feel major lifestyle changes (unless technology somehow saves us again, as mk mentions above). EDIT: I should clarify that I don't really disagree with you but I thought what you said needed a small caveat.Climate change, however, will largely impact the sensitive populations and sensitive climes around the world, leaving the wealthy, northern-hemisphere 1st world a little warmer but no worse off.
This is one reason why you see so few conservatives concerned with global warming - for them, "water wars" are an abstraction. A navigable Northwest Passage? Now we're talkin'.
I am, as you know, always sympathetic to your arguments in this vein. But I'd emphasize that, hell yes, 2014 matters. This three year period is crucial -- as all of you know -- for curtailing the death throes of this planet, brought on by climate change, which will be locked into inevitability unless they are ameliorated really fucking soon. So yes, every year counts, and for a broader reason than that you outline in your post. If the planet was just fine, I'd agree with you. But we don't have the kind of time where we can implode the system and build a radical leftist movement. If it hasn't happened in the last 50 years it'll take at least the next 50, and by then the oceans will be barren. To start with. So.
I mostly agree with you here, actually. But at the same time I really don't have faith that a Senate controlled by Democrats would have done anything seriously curtail issues related to climate change. The only way to really solve those issues is to distribute concentrated power so that we can build control systems that make better decisions and solve problems more efficiently, as I suggested at the end. IMO, switching between Democrats and Republicans doesn't mean anything. It is because the planet is not fine that I feel we need a radical leftist movement. But this movement should be built on a radical decentralisation of government power, as I suggested at the end of the post. I feel that if we could design a medium that would allow a free and fair idea competition, free from financial and political corruption, the people would be able to make more effective decisions related to every major issue. The only question is, how do we best design and implement that medium? I think that is the most important question for the radical left. So maybe in the future I can convince you that the two positions are compatible. The pace of change related to the evolution of information and communication technologies (ICT) in the 21st century is exponential - and I think that if we use this technology in the right way it is our greatest ally - because it potentially allows for the distribution of concentrated power in a way never before possible. So I don't think that just because a revolution hasn't happened in the past 50 years, that we should be skeptical of one happening in the near future. Our system is incredibly unstable economically, and if concentrated power gets its way, you'll be living in Koch America in 2016. So time to rise up and create a different system is now. At least, that is my perspective.But I'd emphasize that, hell yes, 2014 matters. This three year period is crucial -- as all of you know -- for curtailing the death throes of this planet, brought on by climate change, which will be locked into inevitability unless they are ameliorated really fucking soon.
If the planet was just fine, I'd agree with you. But we don't have the kind of time where we can implode the system and build a radical leftist movement.
If it hasn't happened in the last 50 years it'll take at least the next 50, and by then the oceans will be barren.
It doesn't mean anything, because Democrats haven't. It's interesting that you mention Koch by name, because what you describe in the first paragraph is left-libertarianism, which has seductive but ultimately futile arguments (that I think kleinbl00 has been arguing against elsewhere in this thread). As I said above, I don't see in radical leftism what you see. Not anymore. The most extreme (non-libertarian) leftists these days are on the side of centralized government most of the time.I mostly agree with you here, actually. But at the same time I really don't have faith that a Senate controlled by Democrats would have done anything seriously curtail issues related to climate change. The only way to really solve those issues is to distribute concentrated power so that we can build control systems that make better decisions and solve problems more efficiently, as I suggested at the end. IMO, switching between Democrats and Republicans doesn't mean anything.
You kid. The Republicans worship a false idol which they call "the free matket". Their true gods are money and power. A free market isn't hampered by monopoly or oligopoly. Our economy is bound in chains of these two powers. If you wanted to set the amount of government that people desired in a free market economy you would have a balanced budget, not starve the beast. Starving the beast ensures that people pay less than they revive increasing people's desire to consume more government. Money where there mouth is, a desire for smaller goverment would be accomplished by easing taxes, lowering demand for government. For the most part the dems aren't much different, beholden to money with the public will being the least important component of governance.
Your frustrations do almost mimic those of our ancient ancestors, who found that grunting was no longer suitable to express their feelings and tribal social climates. Edit: do not mean to offend with that sentence, sorry! I think this is where I get the most confused. You're still using the language and framework of current politics after supposedly abolishing it. Would this "new radical leftist movement" not inspire radical "rightward" rebuttal? I agree with you that we are on the cusp of another Human Metasystem Transition, but speculating on the shape of a future "control system" is almost futile (extra emphasis on almost). For the moment, the shape is totally unforeseeable, and doesn't even necessarily involve the dissolution of the nation-state structure. One thing you've definitely got right is the potential utility of the internet in governance, but things could still go incredibly wrong. We could see the 'net used as nothing but another method of oppression, a battle we've all been witness to lately. Obviously, we'd see an underground internet gain traction, but things get hazy from there. Also consider the possibility that "metasystem acceleration" has already hit a maximum rate, and that the 21st century won't see the next HMST complete itself. I do admire your idealism and optimism, but McKenna made the classic mistake of thinking that we'd have experienced a technological singularity by now. Turns out quantifying "novelty" isn't so straightforward... Much respect for your passionate sentiments, I find them noble. :)...the outright rejection of the current political system, and the rejuvenation of a new radical leftist movement.
Exactly, I do believe that we are facing a transition of this nature this century. This was really a new thought for me. In my mind I thought that it would make a connection between the type of metasystem transition we need and the Occupy Wall Street movement. But, yes, I agree completely that the language to discuss the next political system should completely abandon the political language of the industrial period. I agree. I think that all we can see are the developmentally constrained outlines of what it might be. But there will mostly be surprises in the variation of that system, that is the nature of evolution. So we are in complete agreement. But at the same time, no one is really focusing on understanding the full contours of the next system, as it is pretty much impossible, but I am at least trying. We do lack vision, which I think is the cause of a lot of pessimism. Yes, I wish futurists in general would pay more attention to this. The fact that so few people are thinking about it in theory is why many things could go wrong in practice. But I think many fundamental concepts of complexity science could be used to guide a safe transition. Haha, yes, but even McKenna admitted that his predicted date for his transition was mostly an act. What matters is that on the scale of cosmic time we are very close to some higher form of organization. It is as Ben Goertzel stated in his 2002 book "Creating Internet Intelligence" that "anyone who has seriously thought about the future of technological evolution has realised that the foundations of human beings and human society will be completely transformed within 50-300 years". Of course that is no time at all over the scales of cosmic time. I personally don't think its possible to predict when it will happen, there are just too many variables, and then there is also human decision making and will. Living systems can't be predicted with the same level of precision as physical systems. But I would be truly surprised if we didn't undergo a system transition before 2050. There are just too many large-scale problems and opportunities in operation at the moment for the present system to hold. But, of course, I could be wrong. Appreciate your thoughts.Your frustrations do almost mimic those of our ancient ancestors, who found that grunting was no longer suitable to express their feelings and tribal social climates.
I think this is where I get the most confused. You're still using the language and framework of current politics after supposedly abolishing it. Would this "new radical leftist movement" not inspire radical "rightward" rebuttal?
I agree with you that we are on the cusp of another Human Metasystem Transition, but speculating on the shape of a future "control system" is almost futile (extra emphasis on almost).
One thing you've definitely got right is the potential utility of the internet in governance, but things could still go incredibly wrong.
I do admire your idealism and optimism, but McKenna made the classic mistake of thinking that we'd have experienced a technological singularity by now. Turns out quantifying "novelty" isn't so straightforward...
Much respect for your passionate sentiments, I find them noble. :)
The free market will continue to function the same as it always has, thats the great thing about a free market structure. It will adapt to any situation, regardless of whether or not there is an increase in automation, this principle has been demonstrated before, beginning with the first industrial revolution and continuing today. There always has and always will be faction in the world, unity will never exist on a world wide scale, this is simply human nature. I cannot see a single example of a united world that was not by force. Rome was united only by brute force, the British empire, every "democratic" country on earth today continues to exist because it's citizens live in fear of the power they have chosen to hand to their government. It's a sad truth but no cooperative society will ever exist with humans in charge. While you make many excellent points about a system that I to agreed is totally broken, your view of humans ability to unite as one is far from realistic. I cannot present you a solution and it's doubtful that anyone can present a solution that will fix the problems created by theological states. Once you institute a solution it will only create different, potentially worse problems.This is because the free market as it currently functions cannot work in a world of increasing automation, which makes labour far less important to economic growth.
the nation-state is not a structure that makes any sense in 2014.
Yes, the only difference this time is that the free market won't need you. That is why I made the point that future economic growth won't be based so much on labour. This is why we need a radical reconceptualisation of our role in this system, and that reconceptualisation cannot be safely guided within our current structures. Here is one primary reason: So what we need to do is find a way to transcend national borders and develop an economic system that distributes financial capital in a more equitable direction. This is essentially what Thomas Piketty recommends in Capital in the 21st Century. Although as David Graeber pointed out, nicely asking the 1% to expropriate themselves is not going to work, so we have to fundamentally reorganise government structures that serve the people's will. I disagree. The 21st century is going to produce economic abundance on a scale that we have never enjoyed before. The great thing about human nature is that it is always evolving and contextual on socioeconomic circumstance, so don't use the behaviour of the historical human as evidence that we can't cooperate and love each other with the planet as a the lowest unit of division. It's a sad truth but no cooperative society will ever exist with a small group of humans controlling global wealth. You can take that view, or we can actually try to build a world that works for everyone. I didn't say it would be easy, but saying it is impossible is ridiculous. We just have to find the right pathway.regardless of whether or not there is an increase in automation, this principle has been demonstrated before, beginning with the first industrial revolution and continuing today.
As automation reduces the number of jobs, taxation will become increasingly important. It seems likely that once this issue becomes apparent, some degree of cooperation between nations will develop. (i.e., standards for taxation).
There always has and always will be faction in the world, unity will never exist on a world wide scale, this is simply human nature
It's a sad truth but no cooperative society will ever exist with humans in charge.
I cannot present you a solution and it's doubtful that anyone can present a solution that will fix the problems created by theological states. Once you institute a solution it will only create different, potentially worse problems.
Nothing to add to this thread, but I wanted to thank you for the Žižek quote. I've never encountered it before and it resonates with me deeply.